Single Person AOC?
 

Hi all,

I'm putting together my AOC application and while I'm able to tick all the boxes and have all my policies in place etc. I'm a bit worried that I've put myself down for every position (chief pilot, maintenance supervisor, director etc.)

Does anyone have any experience as a one man band, getting an AOC and any reccomendations?

Thanks!

I do not have experience running a one man AOC in recent years, though did so a long time ago, when we had far less regulation (and no worse safety).
However I have worked in medium organisations where CASA accepted one person wearing several ‘hats’ e.g. HOFO,HOTAC and Ops Manager.
I have even seen the CEO double as HOFO which can be a serious conflict of interest.
To make matters tricky now, CASA’s latest buzz phrase is “single point of failure” - ie a requirement for each post holder to have a deputy to cover sickness, leave etc.
But if yours is a really simple operation (one aircraft?) it should be possible to cover all the essentials with one person, provided that you have some experience in each field.
Assuming that you do have that experience, you may get big brownie points if you voluntarily elected to have an external organisation conduct occasional safety audits and independently investigate any incidents.
CASA really get off on that sh!t.

You didn't say what the AOC was intended for. If you're going to operate a fleet of say fifty 737s in the near very future then your one man band application will probably not see the light of day.

If you're thinking of say a single aircraft ,banner towing operation using a Piper Cub, then it will be no problem. It all gets progressively more onerous as the numbers of people you are likely to kill increases.

Your question is best addressed to your first point of contact at CASA. No one here can really give you a definitive answer.

Also depends on who’s desk your application ends up on.

and in which office.

Great advice all. Yeah, I forgot to mention it's for charter but specifies small freight items as the intention and also aerial work for still and motion photography as well as media.

"and in which EMPTY office."

Fixed that for you.

Some years back, an ex-CASA pilot joined the company, stayed for 3 years and went back to CASA. The same files were still sitting on his unoccupied desk.

Ask CAsA for a definitive answer ...!! Thanks for the belly laugh, Lucille.
Trust you have plenty of back up cash while you wait for it.
Approval times could range from 3 months to 13 depending on who you get to have to deal with. (from past experience)
Those living very well on the taxpayer teat don’t give a rat,s if you sink or swim in the wait time.
Regarding photography.. a court has stated No person can take a photo from an aircraft in Australia without a cpl and an AOC. Trust you have both.
Had file lying on desks for months while the Paper Shufflers went on long service leave !
But the 3 yrs must be the record, tho.
Just goes to show how stupid we are to put up with it, and difficult it is to make an Av business in Oz.

I wish you a speedy start to your commercial endeavours.
When up and running you may like to post here, time and cost to achieve.

Wot?:confused: So the time a few years back now, when the Murray River was in flood and whilst doing a few very high Glider launches I took a few photographs of the flooded river, one of which was subsequently published in the local Newspaper*.........

*I neither asked for nor received any renumeration for the piccy either.:=

Yeah can you unpack that a bit more please, I have a CPL and want to take a private flight over a construction site and take photos of the site to publish on the business website. Surely that’s a private op? No?

Send the pics to the business from an anonymous email address. You were never there.

I’ve taken pics of a small town and the wife put them on a local Facebook noticeboard. Next thing a local newspaper calls and says they want to use them on the front page. AFAIK that is all good as long a I don’t get paid for them.

Some years ago CASA successfully prosecuted a pilot who was taking photos from his aircraft and selling to property owners (maybe in FNQ??). In those days an Aerial Work AOC was required. Even earlier either DCA or CAA took action against a Vet and a Diesel Mechanic who used their own aircraft to fly to rural properties (with their equipment in the aircraft) to carry our veterinary duties or mechanical repairs. Their reasoning was the use of the aircraft would not be free and was included in the Vet or Mechanic's professional charges.

In May 1987 I obtained a Charter AOC is seventeen days, from scratch to first flight by multiple twin turbine aircraft, which a few weeks later was upgraded to Low Capacity RPT. I believe that may be an Australian record that will never be broken! :}

Not bad going Torres! Indeed impressive for an AOC issue.
Beat this: added and aircraft type to an existing AOC in just three hours! Placed the DHA-3 Drover on a flight school AOC, the DOT dude in the office accross the road at Moorabbin, two minute walk, says; interesting... take me for a circuit eh? Job done!
Those were the days!!!

Pinky the Pilot (and others):
Read the full reg - it states "hire or reward".
Send a copy of a pic taken from your aircraft to the local newspaper, they publish it and fling you a free copy in thanks. No money changes hands, but the free newspaper is counted as "reward".
Are we paranoid? Probably, and I will remain that way until either I see a definition of "fit and proper person", or I see that reg (and related power) removed from the legislation.

Don’t even think of posting anything on Youtube either. The degree of self censorship in Australia, not just because of CASA, is pitiful.

Pinky , Longrass. re photography. Refresh yourself for Reg 206.
Photography. is deemed to be a "commecial " operation.
CAsA has stated for years they'll fix it ,and as ceos have squarked in Senate Hearings .."we are NOT a commercial regulator,..we are a 'safety' regulator". All bull**** of course. CAsA will lie to anyone, even Ministers.
206 denies a person the right to make a living from photography and denies free trade.
I am advised by others more legal that it 'ultra vires' the Act, so has no head of power ie is unlawful.
But its a catchall and CAsA like to leave it there.
Remember too that the commerce of photoraphy has NOTHING to do with the safety of any flight to do so.

My photography business was wiped out by CAsA at the behest of a competitor company, so we have cronyism and corruption into the mix.
206 was the initial hit in court. But CAsA persons had started well before that, 'white-anting' by ringing clients 2 years before summons ! telling them they should not be using my operation because I was doing so illegally, and sending State police/local plods to talk to clients. ( WTF do they know about regs and safety)
In the arts of bastardry CAsA knows every trick in the book to do a hit job.

Between first summons and court, I flew out a contracted project. This really got up their nose because they rang the lawyer and said I was in contempt of court..!! and I hadnt even been there yet.
So I got done again for that using their second knife 2 .7 d ..allowing an aircraft to be used for a 'commecial' purpose ..ie photography. Reverse wording of 206.

So I was made a convicted criminal for going about my qualified profession of Photography, using my qualifications as a very experienced PPL and operations in my own aircraft.
I carried no passengers. I did no harm to others (maybe to the competitors bottom line). I flew by the VFR rules. With GPS tracking and other techo it was a solo operation.
I had no accidents. I was never prosecuted for using an aircraft dangerously, recklessly or unsafely. Couple of minor airspace infringements over the decades but who hasnt?
All I was doing was trying to earn a living...in this wonderful free ? democratic? land of Oz.
Pity about the 'Aviation Hearse' at 16 Furzer St CB,and some of its diabolical inhabitants.
Never mind Demark...there's plenty rotten in the (Soviet) state of CAsA. Corrupt A*%eholes Shafting Aviation.

Fita nd Proper Person
 

"Fit and Proper person" is a common legal term used extensively in areas other than aviation where a license is required to practice (law, real estate, customs, council rangers), like many legal terms it has varying definitions depending on the legal context (ie a fit and proper person to practice law (which involves understanding the law and acting ethically in the clients interests) may not be a fit and proper person to pilot an aircraft (due to an arrogant disregard for the law when applied to oneself)). Given the genuine ambiguity of the concept CASA actually does a pretty good job of guiding its staff on the application of "Fit and Proper Person" decisions devoting an entire appendix of the enforcement manual https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...rcement-manual to the topic.

For CAsA the use of ..Not a 'Fit and Proper' person is a bit like 'CAsA must be satisfied'. Any validity ??
Its a one way street.
There are people in CAsA who have been found by the AFP to have breached the Criminal Codes. Definitely NOT fit and proper, but still employees on the tit and protected by those above.
But being corrupt themselves, its all just like water off a ducks back. "Its easy" "Because we can".

And you can take the protocols of the C&E 'Manuel' with pinch of... What is used and what is ignored depends on the CAsA person and the agenda.

Why is that?

Stefan Drury is making videos from his Cirrus SR22 and charging people to view them (it’s a new paid subscription feature) via YouTube and also receives income from YouTube advertising and he’s still going strong...

He has also collaborated on YouTube with Air Services Australia and has given motivational guest speeches to the Defence Force in Canberra. He is also planning to fly around the world on his PPL and collect the revenue.

All this on a PPL with no CPL or AOC.

Have the times changed, or is he facing an upcoming letter from CASA ?

Pretty sure he has a CPL....

Not that it matters when it comes to this stuff though...